On 2020-07-08 02:20, Greg Ewing wrote:
On 8/07/20 12:48 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
"for x[0] in iter:" uses
x[0] as an assignment target,
You're right, there are some others, but I think they're
equally clear -- all the ones I can think of are directly
after a keyword ("for", "as", "import",
On 8/07/20 12:48 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
"for x[0] in iter:" uses
x[0] as an assignment target,
You're right, there are some others, but I think they're
equally clear -- all the ones I can think of are directly
after a keyword ("for", "as", "import", etc.)
But in match statements, they can
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:45 AM Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> On 8/07/20 12:24 pm, Daniel Moisset wrote:
> > Many people in this thread have argued that the double meaning in the
> > PEP might be confusing, but Python already has a double meaning in other
> > places.
>
> But assignment targets have
On 8/07/20 12:24 pm, Daniel Moisset wrote:
Many people in this thread have argued that the double meaning in the
PEP might be confusing, but Python already has a double meaning in other
places.
But assignment targets have always been clearly separated by
being on the left of an assignment
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 15:07, Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> (...) Nor am I keen on "expressions" being interpreted
> differently after 'case' than elsewhere in Python.
Python already has "expressions" (intentional quotes) that are interpreted
differently depending
I would like to thank everyone who responded to me for their civilised
and courteous replies. I actually expected to get a lot of slagging
off, but was prepared to accept that for what seemed to me at the time
to be a legitimate concern.
If my fears were unfounded, I am delighted.
If I have
Since I took it upon myself to implement PEP 622, I just have a few thoughts to
add to the other excellent responses here. Hopefully these will help clarify
that the intent is not to "railroad" anything.
Rob Cliffe wrote:
> PEP 622 only seems to have been presented to the Python community only
On 7/1/2020 4:14 PM, Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev wrote:
I have an uneasy feeling about this PEP.
I can understand that.
AFAIK the usual procedure for adding a new feature to Python is:
An idea is raised and attracts some support.
Someone sufficiently motivated writes a PEP.
The
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 7:39 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> Whoa!
>
> I have an uneasy feeling about this PEP.
>
> AFAIK the usual procedure for adding a new feature to Python is:
> An idea is raised and attracts some support.
> Someone sufficiently
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 12:40 Eric Snow wrote:
> Also, keep in mind that PEPs are a tool for the decision maker (i.e.
> BDFL delegate). Effectively, everything else is convention. The process
> usually involves community feedback, but has never been community-driven.
> All this has become more
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 09:18 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I think what you describe as "the usual procedure" isn't as usual as
> you think.
>
+1
Also, keep in mind that PEPs are a tool for the decision maker (i.e. BDFL
delegate). Effectively, everything else is convention. The process
usually
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 4:42 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> And since the PEP has Guido's authority behind it, I think
> it is likely that it will eventually be accepted pretty much as it was
> originally written.
>
This seems a bit unfair to Guido. He seems to put
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:14:00 +0100
Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev wrote:
> Whoa!
>
> I have an uneasy feeling about this PEP.
>
> AFAIK the usual procedure for adding a new feature to Python is:
> An idea is raised and attracts some support.
> Someone sufficiently motivated writes a PEP.
>
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:48 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev
wrote:
>
> Whoa!
>
> I have an uneasy feeling about this PEP.
>
> AFAIK the usual procedure for adding a new feature to Python is:
> An idea is raised and attracts some support.
> Someone sufficiently motivated writes a PEP.
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
